Federal Register Vol. 80, No.136,

Overview of This Rule

This rule amends CRP regulations in 7 CFR part 1410 to implement changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 113-79) and makes additional discretionary changes that are needed to clarify eligibility requirements and terms. It also makes discretionary and technical changes to 7 CFR part 718 that are relevant to CRP implementation. This document first provides background information on CRP, then discusses the changes to the CRP regulations, followed by a discussion of the changes to the part 718 regulations.

The purpose of CRP is to cost-effectively assist producers in conserving and improving soil, water, and wildlife, restoring wetlands, improving other natural resources, and addressing issues raised by State, regional, and national conservation initiatives by converting environmentally sensitive cropland and marginal pastureland from the production of agricultural commodities to a long-term vegetative cover, or to improve conditions of grassland. CRP is administered by FSA on behalf of CCC. Since its inception in 1985, CRP has proven to be one of the largest and most successful conservation programs in USDA history. In exchange for annual rental payments, participating farmers and ranchers agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and establish conservation covers comprised of grasses, legumes, forbs, shrubs and tree species that will improve environmental health by preventing soil erosion, improving air and water quality, and enhancing wildlife habitat. In addition, participants with suitable land may restore wetlands and establish shallow water areas for wildlife. Enrollment of eligible grassland in CRP will result in adoption of sustainable grazing practices and preservation of wildlife habitat. Participants also receive cost-share payments and other one-time incentive payments for certain practices to establish, maintain, and manage the conservation covers throughout 10 to 15 year CRP contracts. A wide range of conservation practices may be enrolled under CRP, including but not limited to, introduced or native grasses and legumes, hardwood trees, wildlife habitat, grass waterways, filter strips, riparian buffers, wetlands, rare and declining habitat, upland bird habitat, longleaf pine, duck nesting habitat, and pollinator habitat.

There are three major types of CRP signups: general, continuous, and grassland. Each of the three types has specific enrollment provisions, as described below. The grassland type is a new type added by the 2014 Farm Bill. For all signups, potential participants must submit an offer for enrollment at the local FSA county office or USDA service center.

Enrollment through general signup is based on a competitive offer process during designated signup periods. The general signup occurs when the Secretary of Agriculture announces USDA will accept general signup offers for enrollment. Offers from potential program participants are ranked against each other at the national level. Ranking is based on the environmental benefits expected to result from the proposed conservation practices and expected costs. Each offer is assigned an Environmental Benefit Index (EBI) score depending on ranking factors designed to reflect the expected environmental benefits and costs. The EBI ranking system is specified in detail in the CRP handbook. These EBI factors include wildlife habitat benefits, water quality benefits, farm benefits due to reduced erosion, air quality benefits, benefits that last beyond the contract period, per acre expected costs, and local preference factors for certain benefits. In a general signup, the offer process is competitive and not all offers will necessarily rank high enough to be selected for CRP.

For practices and land with especially high environmental value, enrollment through continuous signup is available year-round without ranking periods. The continuous signup is focused on environmentally sensitive land and offers are not ranked against each other. Land eligible for continuous signup includes, but is not limited to, agricultural land with a high erodibility index; land in riparian areas that border rivers, streams, and lakes; land suitable for wetland restoration; and certain land to be dedicated to other specialized conservation measures. Subject to the acreage caps allocated to States, all continuous signup offers that meet the eligibility requirements are accepted.

Enrollment through the new grassland signup authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill will be administered on a separate continuous signup basis, and offers will be evaluated periodically and ranked. For grassland signup, this rule specifies the applicable new categories of eligible land and new grassland contract provisions. Eligible grassland include land that contain forbs or shrubland (including improved rangeland and pastureland) for which grazing is the predominant use. Up to 2 million acres may be enrolled in CRP as grassland.

This rule does not change the basic administrative structure and nature of CRP.

The 2014 Farm Bill reduced the CRP acreage enrollment cap and made several changes to CRP. For example, it mandated that non-easement functions of the repealed Grassland Reserve Program be carried out under CRP, with enrollment of up to 2 million acres authorized. These enrollments count against the CRP acreage cap. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill mandates changes to routine, prescribed, and emergency grazing, managed harvesting frequency, tree thinning payments, and other provisions.

This rule implements the changes to CRP required by the 2014 Farm Bill. These changes include revised permissive use provisions for emergency harvesting and grazing, and other commercial uses on CRP land. This rule also establishes a penalty-free early CRP contract termination opportunity in fiscal year (FY) 2015 for contracts that have been in effect for at least 5 years and meet certain environmental criteria. It specifies that CRP participants can make certain conservation and land improvements for economic use in the final year of the CRP contract that facilitate protection of enrolled land after contract expiration, and establishes a new type of incentive payment to encourage participants to perform tree thinning and related measures on CRP land. As discussed earlier, it also adds references to veteran farmers and ranchers to the Transition Incentives Program, and includes provisions to reflect the new eligibility requirements for grassland in CRP. This rule also includes the following discretionary provisions to clarify requirements where the 2014 Farm Bill did not define terms or otherwise provided FSA discretion in implementation:

• The “infeasible to farm” provision allows enrollment of the remainder of a field in which CRP practices other than buffers are enrolled on at least 75 percent of the acres in the field, if the remaining land is “infeasible to farm;”

• Grasslands are now eligible for CRP and FSA may enroll up to 2 million acres;

• Up to $10 million in incentive payments may be made to encourage tree thinning and other measures that improve the environmental performance of CRP tree plantings;

• Land may be transferred from CRP to the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP); and

• The amount of cropland (that is not in a National Conservation Priority Area) that can be in a State Conservation Priority Area (CPA) was reduced from 33 percent to 25 percent.

The changes to the CRP regulations are discussed in this document in the order that they appear in 7 CFR part 1410.

Many of the changes to CRP required by the 2014 Farm Bill have already been implemented through an extension of authorization published June 5, 2014 (79 FR 32435-32436). Specifically, the extension announced the continuation of continuous signup, 2014 Transition Incentives Program, and early contract termination opportunities in FY 2015. This rule implements the remaining provisions required by the 2014 Farm Bill, including the new grassland eligibility provisions and the revisions to permissive uses, as well as the discretionary changes.

This rule makes the following changes to the definitions specified in § 1410.2:

The rule adds a new definition for the new ACEP authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill allows USDA to modify a CRP contract to allow a participant to transfer CRP land into ACEP.

The rule adds a new definition for “common grazing practices” that applies to the new grassland enrollments. For enrollments of eligible grassland, section 2004 of the 2014 Farm Bill allows the Secretary to permit common grazing practices, including maintenance and necessary cultural practices, on the enrolled land in a manner that is consistent with maintaining the viability of grassland, forb, and shrub species appropriate to that locality.

This rule modifies the definition of “conservation plan” to include provisions for grassland enrollments.

This rule clarifies that “Erodibility Index (EI)” means that FSA uses the higher of the erodibility from water or wind.

This rule adds definitions for “forb, “grassland,” “improved rangeland or pastureland,” “pastureland,” “rangeland,” and “shrubland” because they are relevant for grassland enrollments.

This rule revises the definition of “infeasible to farm” to add discretion for the Deputy Administrator to determine that land is infeasible to farm for reasons in addition to the piece of land being too small or isolated to be economically viable.

This rule adds a new definition of “nesting season” to reflect the 2014 Farm Bill requirement that permitted activities on CRP land must consider certain categories of bird nesting seasons.

This rule adds a new definition of “veteran farmer or rancher” as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill.

This rule removes the following definitions that are no longer used in the CRP regulations: “cropped wetlands,” “farmed wetlands,” “Water Bank Program (WBP),” and “wetlands farmed under natural conditions.” This rule also removes definitions of “beginning farmer or rancher,” and “limited resource farmer or rancher” from 7 CFR part 1410, because those terms are defined in 7 CFR part 718, which is referenced in 7 CFR part 1410. It removes terms including “merchantable timber,” “present value,” and “private non-industrial forest land” that were only needed to implement the Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program, which the 2014 Farm Bill repealed.

Section 1410.4, “Maximum County Acreage” specifies that acreage placed in CRP and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) cannot exceed 25 percent of the total cropland in a county. This rule revises that section to specify that cropland enrolled under WRP or ACEP wetland reserve easements, as applicable, is included with CRP cropland as part of the maximum county acreage limits. These changes are required for consistency with the 2014 Farm Bill. This rule does not change the existing waiver provisions in this section that allow the 25 percent limit to be exceeded in some circumstances.

Section 1410.5 “Eligible Persons” is amended to add references to veteran farmers and ranchers that are required by the 2014 Farm Bill. This rule also removes a redundant provision from this section concerning ownership or operation of the land for at least 12 months prior to submitting an offer for CRP.

This adds new provisions to § 1410.6 “Eligible Land” to reflect changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill. As provided for in the existing CRP regulations, eligible land for CRP includes cropland with a history of production of tillable crops or marginal pastureland. The purpose of these eligibility requirements, which are not changing with this rule, is to ensure CRP is used to convert environmentally sensitive land to a long-term environmentally beneficial cover. As part of an effort to consolidate the USDA conservation programs, the 2014 Farm Bill adds grassland as a category of eligible land for CRP, and ends authorization for the Grassland Reserve Program.

This rule amends the dates of the cropping history required for certain cropland to be eligible for CRP. Previously, eligible cropland must have been planted or considered planted for 4 of the 6 years during the period of 2002 through 2007. This rule changes the relevant cropping history period to 2008 through 2013.

This rule adds additional provisions regarding infeasible-to-farm land eligibility, as required by the 2014 Farm Bill. Specifically, it adds eligibility for land in a portion of a field not enrolled in CRP if more than 75 percent of the land in the field is enrolled as a conservation practice other than a buffer or filterstrip practice, and the remainder of the field is determined to be infeasible to farm.

This rule removes provisions for eligible land concerning scour erosion, cropped wetland and associated acres, and land associated with non-cropped wetlands. These discretionary changes are needed for clarity and consistency with current policy. This rule also clarifies that land on which environmental measures are already required to be taken by State, local, or Tribal laws is ineligible for CRP.

This rule amends § 1410.7, “Duration of Contracts,” to clarify that continuous and general signup contracts can be between 10 years and 15 years in length. The rule also specifies that grassland signup contracts will be 15 years in length. The additional provision for grassland contracts is required by the 2014 Farm Bill; the other changes are technical clarifications that do not change the existing eligible land or contract requirements.

The current policy on contract extensions is not changing with this rule. Contracts can be extended, but the total contract period including the extension(s) cannot exceed 15 years in length. For example, a 10 year contract can be extended for 1 to 5 years, but a contract currently in year 13 could only be extended for 1 or 2 years. In the case of a contract extension, existing contract terms are extended, except when new mandatory requirements apply, such as when AGI eligibility requirements for CRP are changed by the 2014 Farm Bill.

This rule modifies § 1410.8, “Conservation Priority Areas,” to reduce the total acreage within a State that can be approved for inclusion in a state CPA from 33 percent to 25 percent of the cropland not in a designated CRP national CPA. This discretionary change will help to ensure the most suitable, highest priority land is enrolled. The 2014 Farm Bill also removed some named specific CPAs, but because those CPAs were not named in the regulations, implementing that change does not require a change to the regulations.

This rule removes § 1410.9, “Conversion to Trees,” because that section is obsolete. It only applied to CRP contracts that began before November 28, 1990.

Section 1410.10, “Restoration of Wetlands,” is amended to include references to wetland reserve easements under ACEP. This rule modifies § 1410.11 “Farmable Wetlands Program” to specify that a constructed wetland that is developed to receive surface and subsurface flow from row crop agricultural production is eligible for enrollment. This rule also specifies that the total enrollment cap under farmable wetlands is reduced from 1 million acres to 750,000 acres. Both these changes are required by the 2014 Farm Bill.

Section 2702 of the 2014 Farm Bill repeals authority for Emergency Forestry CRP enrollment; this rule removes § 1410.12, “Emergency Forestry Program,” to reflect this change. As noted earlier, the definitions used only in this section have also been removed from the Definitions section. The end of authorization for new Emergency Forestry contracts, and the removal of the regulations for Emergency Forestry enrollments, does not change existing Emergency Forestry contracts.

The 2014 Farm Bill terminates authority for new enrollments under the Grassland Reserve Program (7 CFR part 1415) but also provides new authority for enrollment of certain grassland into CRP. Previously, only cropland of various types and marginal pastureland was eligible for enrollment in CRP. This rule adds new section on grassland enrollments in § 1410.13, with conforming changes that add grassland provisions to § 1410.23, “Eligible Practices,” § 1410.30, “Signup and Offer Types,” § 1410.31, “Acceptability of Offers,” and § 1410.40, “Cost Share Payments.”

In general, expiring Grassland Reserve Program lands are authorized to be enrolled in CRP, as well as grassland that was not in the Grassland Reserve Program but meet the provisions of § 1410.6 for eligible grassland. Grassland previously enrolled in the Grassland Reserve Program will continue to be subject to 7 CFR part 1415 for existing contracts and easements that have not expired. The 2014 Farm Bill sets an acreage cap of 2 million acres on the new grassland type of enrollment.

This rule modifies § 1410.22, “CRP Conservation Plan,” to add provisions and references for the new grassland contracts. It also contains other minor edits, including adding a reference to forest stewardship plans.

This rule amends § 1410.31, “Acceptability of Offers,” to establish new provisions for the grassland offer acceptance process. In ranking and evaluating grassland signup offers, FSA will consider various factors, including, but not limited to, whether the offer includes expiring CRP or Grassland Reserve Program land, row crop to grassland conversion, multi-species cover, livestock grazing operations, and State priority enrollment criteria and focus areas.

This rule adds references to veteran farmers to the provisions for Transition Incentives Program contracts, as required by the 2014 Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill also adds discretion for FSA to modify or terminate contracts to allow transition of CRP lands into other Federal or State conservation programs, as is reflected in this rule. This rule specifies that CRP participants who terminate CRP contracts in order to participate in ACEP or other Federal or State easement programs are generally not required to refund CRP payments or interest, or pay liquidated damages to the CCC. However, participants will be required to repay CRP Signing Incentive Payments and Practice Incentive Payments when enrolling CRP land in wetlands reserve easements under ACEP.

The 2014 Farm Bill allows contract modifications for resource conserving uses in the final year of the contract. This rule adds provisions that allow an owner or operator in the final year of the CRP contract to make land improvements for economic use, provided that those land improvements maintain protection of the land after expiration of the contract and are conducted in a manner consistent with an approved CRP conservation plan. Such land enrolled in resource conserving use will not be eligible to be re-enrolled in CRP for 5 years following expiration of the contract. The rental payment for that last year of the CRP contract during which resource conserving use land improvements are implemented will be reduced by an amount commensurate with the economic value derived from practice implementation.

This rule amends the provisions in § 1410.42, “Annual Rental and Incentive Payments,” to reflect the incorporation of grassland signup and tree thinning incentives. The 2014 Farm Bill authorizes CCC to provide incentives for tree thinning to improve resource conditions, primarily wildlife habitat enhancement of CRP lands established to trees.

Grassland rental rates will be based on levels not to exceed 75 percent of the estimated grazing value of the land, as required by the 2014 Farm Bill. Tree thinning incentive payments to encourage landowners and operators to implement forest management practices that improve resource condition or enhance wildlife habitat cannot exceed 150 percent of the total cost of the practice installation.

This rule also clarifies provisions for cropland soil rental rates to better reflect that these rates are based on the relative non-irrigated cropland productivity of soils within a county using soil productivity data and prevailing county average cash rental estimates for non-irrigated cropland. This rule also clarifies that marginal pastureland rental rates are based on estimates of the prevailing rental values of marginal pastureland in riparian areas. These clarifications are discretionary.

Section 1410.42 specifies a $50,000 per fiscal year payment limit on CRP rental payments, which is not changing with this rule because the 2014 Farm Bill does not change the payment limits for CRP.

Section 1605 of the 2014 Farm Bill establishes income limitations that apply to 2015 and subsequent crop, program, or fiscal year benefits for programs in Title II of the 2014 Farm Bill, which includes CRP. FSA previously implemented these limitations in 7 CFR part 1400 through a final rule published on April 14, 2014 (79 FR 21086-21118). This rule makes a conforming change to § 1410.44 to reflect the new AGI limits. The 2014 Farm Bill reduces the average AGI limitation for CRP from $1,000,000 to $900,000.

Previously, there was a waiver to the AGI limit for conservation programs if at least 66.66 percent of the participant's income was from farming, or on a case-by-case basis for other reasons to protect environmentally sensitive land of special significance. The AGI waivers for conservation practices are not reauthorized in the 2014 Farm Bill; therefore, this rule removes the waiver provisions in § 1410.44 to reflect this change.

CRP land uses are limited to the list of uses specified in § 1410.63, “Permissive Uses.” The intent is to ensure that CRP land is not used for activities that would tend to defeat the conservation purposes of CRP, while allowing limited activities that are consistent with CRP goals, such as grazing to control invasive species. Permissive uses must be consistent with the conservation of soil, water quality, and wildlife habitat, including habitat during the nesting season for certain categories of birds in the area. To achieve this goal, this rule adds and revises provisions for permissive uses as required by the 2014 Farm Bill. In general, these provisions include new restrictions and payment reductions related to harvesting, grazing, and other commercial land uses. There are also new grazing, haying, mowing, harvesting, and fire prevention permissive uses that apply only to the new grassland signup type.

Wind turbines are permitted on CRP land, provided that wind turbines are installed in numbers and locations as determined appropriate by CCC considering the location, size, and other physical characteristics of land and the extent to which the land contains listed threatened or endangered wildlife and wildlife habitat, and the purposes of CRP. Wind turbines are not a new permissive use, but it is slightly revised by the 2014 Farm Bill, which adds the provision about threatened or endangered wildlife and wildlife habitat.

This rule modifies the provisions for customary forestry maintenance activities to make an incentive payment to encourage proper thinning and other practices to improve the condition of resources, promote forest management, or enhance wildlife habitat on the land. These are consistent with the 2014 Farm Bill requirements.

No barrier fencing or boundary limitation can be established or maintained that prohibits wildlife access to or from the CRP acreage unless required by State law as part of any permissive use. This is a discretionary clarification that is consistent with 2014 Farm Bill requirements that permissive uses be consistent with the conservation of wildlife habitat.

This rule amends the provisions for managed harvesting and other commercial use including managed harvesting of biomass, to reflect the payment reduction of not less than 25 percent and the limitation that the activity occur at least every 5 years but not more than once every 3 years, as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill.

This rule modifies the provisions for routine grazing to be consistent with the 2014 Farm Bill restriction on routine grazing to not more than once every 2 years, with a payment reduction of not less 25 percent unless CRP participant is a beginning farmer or rancher.

The 2014 Farm Bill eliminates the payment reduction for emergency haying, emergency grazing, or other commercial use of the forage on the land in response to drought, flooding, or other emergency. This rule amends § 1410.63 to reflect this change.

Language is added to § 1410.63 to clarify that there is no payment reduction for harvesting, grazing, or other commercial use of the forage on the land in response to a drought, flooding, or other emergency, when conducted consistent with an approved CRP conservation plan, irrespective of whether the harvested material is used or sold by the contract holder.

This rule specifies a permissive use for grazing of program acreage that has been established to vegetative buffers incidental to agricultural production adjacent to the buffers, provided the use does not destroy the permanent vegetative cover, in exchange for a 25 percent payment reduction for the land being grazed. This is a clarification of the existing “incidental grazing” use that was already permitted as a type of grazing use but has not previously been specified in the regulations as a separate permissive use. Incidental grazing, which requires the payment reduction, does not include prescribed grazing to control kudzu or other invasive species. Prescribed grazing to control invasive species also requires a payment reduction, except that a beginning farmer or rancher may conduct prescribed grazing without a payment reduction.

This rule specifies the permissive activities under the new grassland enrollment component of CRP, which include common grazing practices; haying, mowing, or harvesting outside of nesting season; wildfire considerations; grazing-related activities, such as fencing; and other activities as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

This rule adds the term “veteran” throughout § 1410.64, “Transition Incentives Program,” to reflect that eligibility under this program includes veteran farmers and ranchers in addition to beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The definition of “veteran” as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill and in this rule specifies that to be eligible for the CRP Transition Incentives Program, the veteran must have farmed not more than 10 years. Therefore, while the addition of the term “veteran” will improve our outreach efforts to veterans and makes it more clear that they are eligible for the Transition Incentives Program, the eligible veterans would already have been eligible as beginning farmers.

“Preparing to plant a crop” has been added as an appropriate conservation and land improvement practice during the last year of the CRP contract that is being transitioned to a beginning, veteran, or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher under the Transition Incentives Program. This additional improvement practice is specified in the 2014 Farm Bill.

In addition to the changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill and the substantive discretionary changes discussed above, this rule makes a number of nonsubstantive changes to make the CRP regulations clear and consistent. For example, where appropriate, references to “CCC” have been replaced with “Deputy Administrator” to better reflect the office responsible for applicable determinations and decisions. “Shall” has been replaced with “will” or “must” for plain language and to add clarity to requirements. Obsolete provisions are removed in 7 CFR part 1410.

This rule amends FSA regulations in 7 CFR part 718 “Provisions Applicable to Multiple Programs” that govern base acres and acreage reports for CRP and certain other FSA commodity programs and CCC programs operated by FSA. The statutory authority for the regulations in 7 CFR part 718 come from the 2014 Farm Bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill, Pub. L. 110-246) and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171).

As discussed previously, the purpose of CRP is to cost-effectively assist producers in conserving and improving soil, water, wildlife, restoring wetlands, improving other natural resources and addressing issues raised by State, regional, and national conservation initiatives by converting environmentally sensitive cropland and marginal pasture land from the production of agricultural commodities to a long-term vegetative cover. Enrollment of eligible grassland in CRP will result in adoption of sustainable grazing practices and preservation of wildlife habitat. To be eligible for CRP, cropland must have a cropping history for 2008 through 2013, as specified in this rule. Many FSA programs, particularly the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill, specify that eligible land includes land that has base acres, which are cropland acres with a cropping history for certain years dating back to the 1980s. When cropland is enrolled in CRP, the base acres on a farm that exceed the farm's remaining cropland that is not devoted to CRP must be reduced to reflect the CRP enrollment. In that case, the base acres are voluntarily reduced and the base acres reduced are protected (“put on hold”) for that farm while the land is enrolled in CRP. To ensure that producers are able to transition land with base acres to and from CRP, and preserve eligibility of that land for other FSA programs after the CRP contract ends, it is necessary to clarify a number of terms in part 718 that are relevant to cropping histories, production records, and base acres for multiple programs. In general, the amendments to part 718 in this rule are consistent with current agency practice and merely clarify the regulations without changing FSA policy or practice.

This rule revises the term “base acres” to remove obsolete references and replace them with references to the regulations for the new programs authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. It adds definitions for “contiguous,” “contiguous county,” and “contiguous county office” for use in various programs authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill including the CRP, the Cotton Transition Assistance Program (CTAP), ARC and PLC, disaster assistance programs, and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). The addition of the definitions of “contiguous,” “contiguous county,” and “contiguous county office” are necessary to clarify the policy concerning changing a farm's administrative county. The addition of the term “common land unit (CLU)” is needed because FSA now uses CLU numbers instead of field numbers for many production and acreage reports. The rule adds new definitions for “double cropping,” and “subsequent crop,” which are relevant to the cropping history requirements for multiple programs. The rule amends the definition of “entity” to be consistent with the definition in 7 CFR part 1400. This rule makes clarifying changes to the definition of “owner.” The intent of these amendments to the definitions is to have clear and consistent regulations and to make it clear to producers what they must do to preserve the eligibility of land for multiple programs, including CRP.

This rule removes obsolete provisions in § 718.3, “State Committee Responsibilities,” regarding county rates for measurement services. The State Committee does not set measurement service rates.

This rule amends § 718.9 regarding signature requirements to replace the reference to “husband” and “wife” with a reference to “spouse.” It also changes the signature authority provisions to clarify the validity of documents that were previously acted on and approved by a county office or county committee, as required by section 1617 of the 2008 Farm Bill. These provisions have already been implemented, but were not in the regulations.

This rule amends § 718.102 to clarify the programs for which participants must submit acreage reports. It amends § 718.103 to clarify the requirements for documenting prevented planting. These are not new requirements; this reflects a discretionary decision to include detailed requirements previously in the handbooks in the regulations. This is needed to ensure that producers correctly document prevented planting, which is relevant to cropping history for the purposes of program eligibility for CRP and other programs.

This rule amends § 718.106, “Non-compliance and Acreage Reports,” to remove references to good faith or willful falsification. This is a program integrity issue to clarify that false acreage reports may result in program ineligibility, independent of motivation for the false report.

This rule amends § 718.112, “Redetermination,” to be consistent with current policy on when producers must submit requests for redetermination of crop acreage, appraised yield, or farm stored production.

This rule amends § 718.201, “Farm Reconstitution,” to be consistent with current policy, and to include references to land eligible for new programs authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. This rule makes similar changes to § 718.205, “Substantive Changes in Farming Operation, and Changes in Related Legal Entities,” and § 718.206, “Determining Farms, Tracts, Allotments, Quotas, and Bases When Reconstitution is Made by Division.” As discussed earlier, these changes are relevant to preserving base acres for a given farm as land is transitioned into CRP and back into other FSA programs. This rule also amends § 718.206 to specify that, within 30 days after a prescribed form, letter, or contract providing base acres is issued, owners of the reconstituted farm may request a different designation of base acres, so long as all the owners agree in writing to the designation.

This rule amends § 718.301, “Applicability,” by adding a new paragraph that clarifies that relief provisions are not a means by which persons can obtain a review of a program's regulations or the agency's interpretations of its own regulations. This is a discretionary clarification to clarify program integrity provisions that is consistent with current policy. Similar clarifying amendments are made to other sections in subpart D, “Equitable Relief from Ineligibility.” This rule amends § 718.306 to clarify that if a determination was in any way based on erroneous, innocent, or purposeful misrepresentation; false statement; fraud; or willful misconduct by or on behalf of the participant, the determination is not final. Another amendment clarifies that FSA will correct errors and incorrect decisions.

In addition, this rule makes minor plain language changes, such as replacing “shall” with “will,” to several sections of part 718. This rule removes obsolete provisions related to CRP referring to actions taken prior to the 2008 Farm Bill. The definition of “agricultural commodity” is removed because the term is not used in the subpart in which it was defined.

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the Federal Register and interested persons be given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation, except when the rule involves a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. Section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill requires that the programs of Title II be implemented by interim rules effective on publication with an opportunity for notice and comment.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this interim rule as significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. The costs and benefits of this proposed rule are summarized below. The full cost benefit analysis is available on regulations.gov.

Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this interim rule, we invite your comments on how to make the rule easier to understand. For example:

• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Are the scope and intent of the rule clear?

• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

• Is the material logically organized?

• Would changing the grouping or order of sections or adding headings make the rule easier to understand?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? Are there specific sections that are too long or confusing?

• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

The mandatory and discretionary changes to CRP specified in this rule are expected to have a minimal cost impact for CRP as a whole, although individual producers could experience measurable increases or decreases in financial and environmental benefits. Incentive payments for tree thinning, Transition Incentives Program payments, and new permissive uses specified in this rule are expected to increase costs to the government by $67 million for FY 2014 through 2018. That includes $10 million for tree thinning, $28 million for Transition Incentives Program payments, and $29 million for rental payments that are no longer reduced for emergency haying and grazing. Enrolling grasslands is expected to reduce costs by $31 million during FY 2014 through 2018, resulting in an estimated net overall cost of $36 million for FY 2014 through 2018, an average of $7.3 million per year.

The acreage cap for CRP specified in the 2014 Farm Bill is expected to reduce overall payments to producers (and costs to the government) for CRP by $616 million total between FY 2014 and FY 2018 ($2.8 billion between FY 2014 and FY 2023). However, that cost reduction is not the result of the specific provisions in this rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule whenever an agency is required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law to publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the Secretary of Agriculture and FSA are not required by any law to publish a proposed rule for this rulemaking initiative. CCC is required by section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill to issue an interim rule effective on publication with an opportunity for comment.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), FSA prepared a Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) for the changes to CRP proposed as a result of the mandatory provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill. The CRP Final SPEIS was completed as required by NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FSA's NEPA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799).

FSA provided notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the CRP SPEIS in the Federal Register on November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71561-71562), and requested public comment on the preliminary alternatives for analyzing changes to CRP that were proposed as a result of the mandatory provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill. The Draft SPEIS public comment period began with a Notice of Availability (NOA) published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014 (79 FR 41247-41249), and public meetings were held in several locations across the country in July and August, 2014. The Final SPEIS public comment period began with a NOA published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2014 (79 FR 76952-76955).

Many of the changes to CRP from the 2014 Farm Bill did not require analysis in the SPEIS because they were administrative in nature, clarified the mandatory provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, would not result in major changes to the current administration of CRP, and were addressed in previous NEPA documentation concerning CRP. Only those changes that did not meet these criteria were included in the SPEIS.

As part of this CRP rulemaking initiative, FSA prepared a Record of Decision, which identified the alternative selected for implementation and outlines the rationale, as well as a discussion of any final comments received for the SPEIS, and was published on June 18, 2015 (80 FR 34883-86).

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials that would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial assistance. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. For reasons specified in the final rule related document regarding 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the programs and activities in this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule is not retroactive and does not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11, 624, and 780 must be exhausted.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this proposed rule would not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as required by law. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

FSA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) for State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. In addition, CCC is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies is the Conservation Reserve Program—10.069.

The regulations in this rule are exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), as specified in section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill, which provides that these regulations be promulgated and the program administered without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

CCC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

For the reasons explained above, CCC and FSA amend 7 CFR parts 718 and 1410 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8575). The NPRM is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. The NPRM was prompted by reports that side link clevis bolts of the front engine mount do not meet the DSG requirements on airplanes equipped with General Electric Company CF6-80A3 engines. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive replacement of all side link clevis engine mount bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the front engine mount, and consequent possible departure of the engine.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0191, dated August 29, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0086-0003.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 8575, February 18, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 8575, February 18, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 8575, February 18, 2015).

We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A310-71-2038, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 8, 2014. The service information describes procedures for replacement of all side link clevis bolts on the CF6-80A3 front engine mount and subsequent re-identification of the newly installed bolts with a cross (to differentiate them from the old ones). This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 142 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $2,900 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $194,610, or $14,970 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0086; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

AD 2015-12-04, Amendment 39-18177, 80 FR 34534, June 17, 2015), requires initial and repetitive dimensional inspections of the affected fuel control drives and insertion of certain airplane operating procedures into the applicable flight manuals.

As published, the AD number in the document headings is incorrect. Additionally, the Amendment number in the regulatory text of AD 2015-12-04 is incorrect.

No other part of the final rule has been changed.

The effective date of AD 2015-12-04 remains July 22, 2015.

In the Federal Register of June 17, 2015, AD 2015-12-04; Amendment 39-18177 (80 FR 34534) is corrected as follows:

On page 34534, in the 2nd column, on line 6, change “2014-12-04” to “2015-12-04”.

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model GA8-TC320 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015 (74 FR 21193), and proposed to revise AD 2015-06-02, Amendment 39-18120 (80 FR 14810; March 20, 2015).

The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information originated by an airworthiness authority of another country. The MCAI states that:

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1123-0007.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (74 FR 21193, April 17, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (74 FR 21193, April 17, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (74 FR 21193, April 17, 2015).

We reviewed GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the orientation of the engine isolator mounts to verify proper installation, re-installing if necessary, and installing steel washers on the forward side of each side of the engine isolator mounts. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1123; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75100). The NPRM was prompted by an analysis, which indicated that in a limited flight envelope with specific conditions, divergent flutter could occur during a high g-load maneuver in combination with certain system failures. The NPRM proposed to require replacing the LCE modules, replacing the inboard elevator PCPs, installing new external compensators for the PCPs, and revising the maintenance or inspection program. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain system failures from resulting in divergent flutter, and subsequent loss of continued safe flight and landing.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supported the NPRM (79 FR 75100, December 17, 2014).

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 75100, December 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 75100, December 17, 2014).

We reviewed the following service information.

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2506, dated February 3, 2014, which describes procedures for replacing the LCE modules.

• Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2513, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2014, which describes procedures for installing the inboard elevator compensator and replacing the PCP.

We have also reviewed Boeing 747-8/8F Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs) Document D011U721-02-03, Revision December 2013, which contains the following tasks in Section G., “CMR Tasks”:

• Item Number 27-CMR-10, “Lubricate inboard elevator hinge bearings.”

• Item Number 27-CMR-11, “Functional check of inboard elevator hinge bearing and power control unit rod end bearing free play.”

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37684). The NPRM was prompted by reports of deficiencies in the FCM software. The NPRM proposed to require installing certain FCM software. We are issuing this AD to correct deficiencies in the FCM software, which, if not corrected, could prevent continued safe flight and landing.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Airlines Engineering, the Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA), and Boeing expressed support for the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014). United Airlines Engineering also indicated that all of its airplanes were modified as of April 2, 2014, with no adverse effects.

Boeing requested that we issue AMOCs for several items it identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014. Boeing requested AMOCs to do the following actions.

• Install the FCM operational program software (OPS) in the Mass Storage Device 1 only.

• To identify the existing FCM OPS software as either part number HNP5E-AL01-5010 (Block Point 1) or part number HNP5F-AL01-5011 (Block Point 2) software.

• To specify that the FCM loadable diagnostic information (LDI) database (DB) and FCM air data reference function (ADRF) DB software are not required to be reloaded if the FCM OPS software part number HNP5C-AL01-5012 can be successfully loaded without reloading the databases.

We agree that the issues raised by the commenter should be addressed. The issues are addressed in a new revision to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014. We have revised paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of this AD to reference Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. There has been no expansion to the applicability or scope of this AD. Use of either Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015, is acceptable. No further work is necessary on airplanes on which operators have done the actions described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014. We have added new paragraph (j) of this AD to provide credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014. We have re-designated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

However, we disagree with issuing AMOCs at this time. AMOCs provide an alternative method of compliance to the methods required to be used in the associated AD. An AMOC is issued only after an AD has been issued and only after data are provided to show that the proposed solution is complete and addresses the unsafe condition.

Boeing requested that we issue an AMOC to allow installation of the FCM Block Point 4 software or later FCM software in lieu of the FCM Block Point 3 software proposed by the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014). Boeing explained that the FCM Block Point 4 software or later FCM software updates are an alternative to the Block Point 3 software, and that operators may wish to install Block Point 4 or later FCM software due to the additional product improvements provided in the later software versions.

We agree that FCM Block Point 4 (or later FAA-approved FCM software versions) includes the Block Point 3 updates and therefore corrects the unsafe condition identified in this AD. We have retained the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014); clarified and moved the required software installation from paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to new paragraph (g)(1) of this AD; and added new paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, which specify to install FCM Block Point 4 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270023-00, Issue 001, dated July 24, 2014, or to install FCM Common Block Point 1 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270027-00, Issue 002, dated March 9, 2015, or to install any later FAA-approved FCM software version using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. As stated previously, an AMOC is issued only after an AD has been issued and only after data are provided to show that the proposed solution is complete and addresses the unsafe condition. Also, as previously stated, we have added new paragraph (j) of this AD to provide credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270027-00, Issue 001, dated September 26, 2014.

In addition, we recommend that Boeing incorporate the provision for later approved parts in its service information, when appropriate. This provision is described in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20-176A, dated June 16, 2014. (See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/979ddd1479e1ec6f86257cfc0052d4e9/$FILE/AC%2020-176A.PDF.)

Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014) to clarify that the minimum concurrent requirement for Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014, is to install the FCM LDI DB software and central maintenance computer function (CMCF) LDI DB software. Boeing stated that the updated FCM OPS software is installed per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014, and therefore, the previous FCM OPS software version specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270017-00, Issue 001, dated September 18, 2013, does not need to be installed.

We agree with the commenter's request for clarification. This clarification was addressed in the new revision of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015, which we have replicated in the final rule by revising paragraph (h) to include the statement “. . . or at a minimum install the FCM LDI DB and CMCF LDI DB software, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270017-00, Issue 001, dated September 18, 2013.

Boeing requested that we revise the source of the deficiency provided in the first sentence of the Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014), which stated, in part, “We have received reports of in-service incidents and identified an indicating system shortcoming due to. . . .” Boeing stated that the issues are with the flight control system, not the indicating system.

We agree with the commenter that the shortcoming is in the flight control system, not the indicating system. However, this section is not repeated in the final rule. Therefore no change is needed to this AD.

Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014), which referred to installation of “new” software. Boeing requested that we remove the word “new” from that sentence. Boeing stated that only the FCM OPS software is new, and that the FCM LDI DB, FCM ADRF DB, and CMCF LDI DB software identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014, are previous software versions.

We agree with the request, for the reasons provided by the commenter. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD accordingly.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Boeing has issued the following service bulletins.

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270017-00, Issue 001, dated September 18, 2013. This service information describes procedures for installing FCM OPS, FCM LDI DB, and CMCF LDI DB software, and doing a software configuration check.

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015. This service information describes procedures for installing FCM OPS, FCM LDI DB, and FCM ADRF DB software, and doing a software configuration check.

• Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270023-00, Issue 001, dated July 24, 2014. This service information describes procedures for installing FCM OPS, FCM LDI DB, FCM ADRF DB, and CMCF LDI DB software, and doing a software configuration check.

• Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270027-00, Issue 002, dated March 9, 2015. This service information describes procedures for installing FCM OPS, FCM LDI DB, FCM Compatibility DB, and CMCF LDI DB software, and doing a software configuration check.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this or AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

The parts cost for the FCM BP3 software installation is not included in our cost estimate. It is considered Boeing-provided loadable software, which is referenced in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015, under “Parts & Materials Supplied by the Operator.”

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to adding an AD that would apply to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Model PC-12/47 and PC-12/47E airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2015 (80 FR 24854). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1177-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.

Johan Kruger stated the sentence of paragraph (e) Reason in the proposed AD was incomplete and misleading:

Johan Kruger proposed replacing the above sentence with this sentence similar to the MCAI:

We agree with the commenter that the proposed sentence is clarification of the unsafe condition. We have adopted the proposed sentence in paragraph (e) of the AD.

Johan Kruger stated the cited part number (P/N) 27.15.12.037 of the aileron trim tab assembly quoted is wrong in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of the proposed AD; the correct P/N is 527.15.12.037. We infer that the commenter requested correction of the incorrect P/N.

We agree with the commenter that the P/N in the proposed AD is incorrect. We have changed the incorrect P/N to 527.15.12.037 in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of the AD.

Johan Kruger commented the wording in paragraph 2(f)(4) is misleading, “. . . provided that an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038 is not installed on the airplane.”

Johan Kruger further wrote that Pilatus proposed the wording be changed to read, “. . . provided that an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038 is not installed on that aileron assembly.”

We infer the commenter means paragraph (f)(4) of the AD.

We agree with the commenter. Aileron trim tab assemblies will only be associated with aileron assemblies and not by airplane. The aileron assemblies themselves are associated with the airplane number. We have adopted the proposed wording in paragraph (f)(4) of the AD.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 24854, May 1, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 24854, May 1, 2015).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

We reviewed PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 27-021, dated January 20, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacement of the aileron tab counter balance weight. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule.

We estimate that this AD will affect 303 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5.5 work hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,000 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $444,652.50, or $1,467.50 per product.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1177; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Defuniak Springs Airport, Defuniak Springs, FL.

On April 24, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at Defuniak Springs Airport, Defuniak Springs, FL (80 FR 22949). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Defuniak Springs Airport, Defuniak Springs, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Background

The noise from smaller jet airplanes continues to have an impact on communities near airports. In recognition of this impact, Congress addressed the operations of these airplanes in Section 506 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. That section states: “[A]fter December 31, 2015, a person may not operate a civil subsonic jet airplane with a maximum weight of 75,000 pounds or less, and for which an airworthiness certificate (other than an experimental certificate) has been issued, to or from an airport in the United States unless the Secretary of Transportation finds that the aircraft complies with [S]tage 3 noise levels.” Stage 3 noise levels are the certificated noise levels as established in 14 CFR part 36.

In 2013, the FAA codified this statutory requirement as § 91.881. The prohibition applies to all civil operations in the 48 contiguous United States regardless of purpose (except for those airplanes that have an experimental airworthiness certificate). The law also provides for operation of otherwise prohibited airplanes after that date under certain circumstances. The authorized purposes were codified in § 91.883, which includes the procedure for applying for a special flight authorization from the FAA.

Operators of airplanes that do not comply with Stage 3 noise levels may choose to replace them, or to incorporate noise-reduction technologies that may be available to make the airplanes Stage 3 noise compliant. Operators that continue to fly non-compliant airplanes after December 31, 2015, will be subject to applicable civil penalties.

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments

NASA has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it makes nonsubstantive changes to correct citations and spelling errors within the parts listed. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if NASA receives significant adverse comments, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, NASA will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

The revision to these rules are part of NASA's retrospective plan under E.O. 13563 completed in August 2011. NASA's full plan can be accessed on the Agency's open Government Web site at http://www.nasa.gov/open/. With the passage of Public Law 111-314, Enactment of Title 51—National and Commercial Space Programs, Dec. 18, 2010, some of the NASA Space Act citations for the United States Code in Title 14 of the CFR needed to be updated to Title 51. In the process of reviewing the regulations for NASA's retrospective plan that are maintained by the Office of the General Counsel, the following parts were identified as needing citation updates and some also needed spelling corrections for a few misspelled words:

The National Aeronautics and Space Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20113 (a), authorizes the Administrator of NASA to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law.

Executive Orders (EO) 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). EO 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated as “not significant” under section 3(f) of EO 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to be published at the time the proposed rule is published. This requirement does not apply if the agency “certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (5 U.S.C. 603). This rule removes one section from Title 14 of the CFR and, therefore, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

EO 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) requires regulations be reviewed for Federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local governments, and if the effects are sufficiently substantial, preparation of the Federal assessment is required to assist senior policy makers. The amendments will not have any substantial direct effects on state and local governments within the meaning of the EO. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.

Accordingly, under the authority of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, as amended, [51 U.S.C. 20113], NASA amends parts 1245, 1262, 1263, 1264, and 1266 of title 14 as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

On May 14, 2015, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations; Southeast Drag Boat Championships, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC in the Federal Register (78 FR 16205). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life and property on navigable waters of the United States during the Southeast Drag Boat Championships.

From July 24, 2015 until July 26, 2015, the Bucksport Marina will host the Southeast Drag Boat Championships, a series of high-speed boat races. The event will be held on a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. Approximately 50 high-speed race boats are anticipated to participate in the races.

This special local regulation encompasses certain waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. This special local regulation will be enforced daily from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. on July 24, 2015 until July 26, 2015. This special local regulation consists of a regulated area around vessels participating in the event. Persons and vessels that are not participating in the event are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16 to seek authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such permission must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

The economic impact of this rule is not expected to be significant for the following reasons: (1) Although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the effective period; (2) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (3) advance notification will be made to the local maritime community via broadcast notice to mariners.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within the regulated area from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. daily from July 24, 2015 through July 26, 2015. However, this special local regulation would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only three days over a weekend. Additionally, traffic will be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the authorization of the Captain of the Port of Charleston or a designated representative, and all vessels will be permitted to operate in the surrounding area during the effective period.

For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive necessary information about the event until March 19, 2015. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and to receive public comments prior to the event. In addition, any delay in the effective date of this rule would be impracticable for the same insufficient time as noted above and because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the race participants, spectators and the public.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Beaufort Water Festival.

This temporary rule creates a regulated area that will encompass a portion of the Beaufort River that is 700 ft wide by 2600 ft in length, west of the Woods Memorial Bridge in front of Waterfront Park in Beaufort, SC. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring, or remaining within the regulated area. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. Persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of this special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimal for the following reasons: (1) The rule will be in effect for only four hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the effective period; (3) advance notification will be made to the local maritime community via broadcast notice to mariners.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of Beaufort River from 12:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. on July 26, 2015. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for Federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

On April 21, 2015, we published a NPRM entitled “Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI” in the Federal Register (80 FR 22144). We received no comments on the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. This provision authorizes an agency to make a rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register when the agency for good cause finds that delaying the effective period for 30 days or more is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because construction of the Block Island Wind Farm is scheduled to begin in early July, the environmental window within which construction can be conducted is short, and no comments opposing the safety zone were received in response to the NPRM. Therefore, it is impracticable to make this rule effective 30 days or more after publication in the Federal Register.

The legal basis for the rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1., which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.

This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life and navigation, for both workers and the boating public, within the vicinity of the BIWF in Rhode Island Sound, RI.

The Coast Guard is establishing a 500-yard safety zone around each of five locations where the BIWF WTG foundations will be constructed in the navigable waters of the Rhode Island Sound, RI, from July 1 to September 30, 2015. Locations of these platforms are:

These safety zones are intended to safeguard mariners from the hazards associated with construction of the BIWF WTG foundations. Vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones while construction vessels and associated equipment are present unless authorized by the COTP, Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative.

No comments were received and no changes were made to the language contained in the NPRM.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

We expect the adverse economic impact of this rule to be minimal. Although this regulation may have some adverse impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: Vessels will only be restricted from the safety zones during periods of actual construction activity from July 1 to September 30, 2015; and the BIWF is located approximately three miles offshore from Block Island and the safety zones are only 500-yards in radius centered on the five BIWF WTG foundation locations, allowing plenty of room for vessels to pass without having to divert a long distance around the construction areas.

Notification of the BIWF construction activity and the effective enforcement periods of the associated safety zones will be made to mariners through the Rhode Island Port Safety Forum, and local and broadcast NTMs.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: Owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, moor, or anchor within 500 yards of the five BIWF WTG foundation construction locations.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. A final categorical exclusion document and environmental checklist are located in the docket for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930. Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7. Enforcement will occur intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday through Friday, from August 3, 2015, through August 14, 2015. In the event of a postponement of the trial tests due to inclement weather or other unforeseen circumstances, this zone will be enforced intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 17, 2015, through September 18, 2015, excluding September 7, 2015.

This enforcement action is necessary because the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's trial tests on the water for Asian Carp studies pose risks to life and property. Because of these risks, it is necessary to control vessel movement during the operations to prevent injury and property loss.

In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up, or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated representative.

Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port representative may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan on VHF channel 16.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will also provide notice through other means, which may include Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral notice. Additionally, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan may notify representatives from the maritime industry through telephonic and email notifications.

The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930. Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone in the vicinity of the Brandon Road Lock and Dam between Mile Marker 286 and Mile Marker 286.5. Enforcement will occur intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday through Friday, from August 17, 2015, through August 21, 2015. In the event of a postponement of the trial tests due to inclement weather or other unforeseen circumstances, this zone will be enforced intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday through Friday from August 24, 2015, through September 18, 2015, excluding September 7, 2015.

This enforcement action is necessary because the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's trial tests on the water for Asian Carp studies pose risks to life and property. Because of these risks, it is necessary to control vessel movement during the operations to prevent injury and property loss.

In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up, or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated representative.

Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port representative may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan on VHF channel 16.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will also provide notice through other means, which may include Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral notice. Additionally, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan may notify representatives from the maritime industry through telephonic and email notifications.

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TFR Temporary Final Rule A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

Between 9:30 p.m. and 11 p.m. on July 10, 2015; July 23, 2015; August 13, 2015; August 27, 2015; and September 6, 2015, a fireworks display will be held on the shoreline of Lake Ontario in Olcott, NY. It is anticipated that numerous vessels will be in the immediate vicinity of the launch point. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that such a launch proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Town of Olcott fireworks display. This zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 10, 2015; July 23, 2015; August 13, 2015; August 27, 2015; and September 6, 2015. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario; Olcott, NY within a 1,050-foot radius of position 43°20′23.6″ N. and 078°43′09.5″ W. (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Ontario on the evening of July 10, 2015; July 23, 2015; August 13, 2015; August 27, 2015; and September 6, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 90 minutes late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Diagnostic codes (DCs) 5051 through 5056, under 38 CFR 4.71a, govern the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) for prosthetic replacement of joints under the musculoskeletal system. These DCs state that a 100-percent evaluation will be sustained for 1 year following the prosthetic replacement of the named joint. This period of total disability evaluation is designed to provide temporary convalescence for major surgery, such as total joint replacement. Following the convalescent period, a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or VA-approved examination is conducted to determine any residual disability, and a new rating evaluation is assigned based on such residuals.

The field of orthopedic medicine has progressed to such a degree that total prosthetic replacement of a joint is not always necessary. Surgical procedures, sometimes referred to generally as “joint replacements,” may only require partial replacement of the disabled joint.1 Partial replacement has the benefit of not requiring the same length of time for convalescence.2 The progression of this area of medical science has raised an issue as to whether a veteran who undergoes a partial replacement of a joint is entitled to the 100-percent rating evaluation during the convalescent period under DCs 5051 through 5056.

VA has long interpreted “joint replacement,” as used in § 4.71a, to mean total joint replacement. Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) issued a precedential panel decision upholding VA's interpretation of § 4.71a. In Hudgens v. Gibson, 26 Vet. App. 558 (2014), the Veterans Court upheld the Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that DC 5055 applies only to total knee prosthetic replacements. The Veterans Court determined that the plain language of DC 5055 was unambiguous. Id. at 561. The Veterans Court found that the medical definition of “knee joint” encompassed three distinct compartments of the knee and that “[n]othing in the plain language of the regulation indicates that it applies to replacements of less than a complete knee joint . . .”. Id. In addition, the Veterans Court cited DC 5054, for hip joint prosthesis, as an example of when VA intends to evaluate partial joint replacement. Diagnostic Code 5054, also under § 4.71a, provides evaluation criteria for “[p]rosthetic replacement of the head of the femur or of the acetabulum” (italics added), which together make up the hip joint. Id. The Veterans Court concluded that “DC 5055 applies only to total knee replacements, as the Secretary has demonstrated in other parts of § 4.71(a) [sic] that he is aware of how to include partial joint replacements as part of disability rating criteria in other parts of § 4.71(a) [sic].” Id. at 562.

In view of the above court decision, and VA's longstanding interpretation, VA is amending its regulations to clarify that the language of § 4.71a, Prosthetic Implants, which refers to replacement of the named joint, refers to replacement of the joint as a whole, except where it is otherwise stated under DC 5054. To avoid confusion in applying these DCs, VA is adding an explanatory note under 38 CFR 4.71a, directly above DCs 5051 through 5056, which notifies readers that “prosthetic replacement” means a total, not a partial, joint replacement, except as it is otherwise stated under DC 5054.

This final rule provides interpretive guidance on VA's meaning of “prosthetic replacement” as noted in the preceding discussion and consistent with the recent Hudgens v. Gibson decision. This guidance does not represent a new agency interpretation or a substantive change to the eligibility criteria for any VA benefit; rather, it provides notice regarding VA's longstanding interpretation of its regulation on prosthetic implants, which the Veterans Court recently upheld. As such, VA is publishing this final rule without opportunity for public comment.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds that this is an interpretive rule, which, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), VA may promulgate without prior opportunity for public comment. See also Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1206 (2015). This rule merely restates VA's longstanding interpretation of its regulation, which the Veterans Court upheld. Therefore, a prior opportunity for notice and comment is unnecessary. Additionally, based on the above cited justification, VA finds good cause to dispense with the delayed-effective-date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of this rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This final rule will directly affect only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.100, Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.106, Specially Adapted Housing for Disabled Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; 64.116, Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 6, 2015, for publication.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 4 as set forth below:

On October 15, 2008 (73 FR 66964) and January 22, 2010 (75 FR 6474), the EPA revised the Pb and NO2 NAAQS, respectively. Within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, states must submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2), often referred to as “infrastructure” requirements. On May 11, 2015, Ecology submitted a SIP revision to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements demonstrating that sources in Washington do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state. On May 27, 2015, the EPA proposed to find that the Washington SIP meets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS (80 FR 30200). An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on June 26, 2015. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.

The EPA reviewed the May 11, 2015 submittal from Ecology demonstrating that sources in Washington do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state. The EPA has determined that the Washington SIP meets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated September 3, 2013. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and nitrogen oxides react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOCs that can be released into the atmosphere. VOCs have different levels of reactivity, that is, some VOCs react slowly or form less ozone, and therefore, changes in their emissions have limited effects on local or regional ozone pollution episodes. It has been EPA's policy that VOCs with a negligible level of reactivity should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC contained at 40 CFR 51.100(s) so as to focus control efforts on compounds that do significantly increase ozone concentrations. This is accomplished by adding the substance to a list of compounds not considered to be VOCs, and thus, excluded from the definition of VOC. EPA believes that exempting such compounds creates an incentive for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs. On August 28, 2013 (78 FR 53029) and October 22, 2013 (78 FR 62451), EPA revised the definition of VOC contained in 40 CFR 51.100 to exclude two substances from the definition of VOC. The compounds excluded from the definition of VOC are trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (also known as SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (also known as HFO-1234yf).

On May 7, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal revision to its SIP which consists of adding two additional compounds to the list of substances that are not considered VOCs found at 9VAC5-10-20. These compounds are trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (also known as SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (also known as HFO-1234yf). The May 7, 2015 SIP revision will allow the Virginia SIP to mirror the Federal definition of VOC. EPA believes that by excluding these negligibly reactive compounds from the definition of VOC an incentive is created for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds; therefore, the air quality in Virginia will not be negatively affected by the approval of these SIP revisions particularly as EPA has found these compounds negligibly reactive for ozone formation.

EPA is approving the SIP revision to the definition of VOC submitted by Virginia on May 7, 2015. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on September 14, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 17, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code § 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

In this rulemaking action, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the definition of VOCs as described in section II of this rulemaking action. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action.

This action, revising the definition of VOCs, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On December 3, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), formally submitted a request to redesignate the Johnstown Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment throughout the Johnstown Area over the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is approving for transportation conformity purposes. PADEP also submitted a 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory that was included in the maintenance plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3).

On April 23, 2015 (80 FR 22672), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for Pennsylvania. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's December 3, 2014 request to redesignate the Johnstown Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also proposed approval of the associated maintenance plan as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The maintenance plan included the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for both NAAQS which EPA proposed to approve for purposes of transportation conformity. In addition, EPA proposed approval of the 2007 emissions inventory also included in the maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area for both NAAQS to meet the emissions inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

The details of Pennsylvania's submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No adverse public comments were received on the NPR.

EPA is taking final actions on the redesignation request and SIP revisions submitted on December 3, 2014 by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the Johnstown Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. First, EPA finds that the monitoring data demonstrates that the Area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and continues to attain both NAAQS. Second, EPA is approving Pennsylvania's redesignation request for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, because EPA has determined that the request meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for both NAAQS. Approval of this redesignation request will change the official designation of the Johnstown Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Third, EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because it meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Johnstown Area for transportation conformity purposes. In addition, EPA is approving the 2007 emissions inventory for the Johnstown Area as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for both NAAQS.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for this rulemaking action to become effective immediately upon publication. A delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which eliminates CAA obligations that would otherwise apply. The immediate effective date for this rulemaking action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rulemaking action, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rulemaking action relieves the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of the obligation to comply with nonattainment-related planning requirements for the Johnstown Area pursuant to part D of the CAA and approves certain emissions inventories and MVEBs for the Johnstown Area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this rulemaking action to become effective on the date of publication.

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action, approving the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the comprehensive emissions inventory for the Johnstown Area for both NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

On April 30, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), formally submitted a request to redesignate the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment throughout the Lancaster Area over the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is approving for transportation conformity purposes. PADEP also submitted a 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory that was included in the maintenance plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3).

On May 1, 2015 (80 FR 24874), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for Pennsylvania. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's April 30, 2014 request to redesignate the Lancaster Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also proposed approval of the associated maintenance plan as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The maintenance plan included the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for both NAAQS which EPA proposed to approve for purposes of transportation conformity. In addition, EPA proposed approval of the 2007 emissions inventory also included in the maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area for both NAAQS to meet the emissions inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

The details of Pennsylvania's submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No adverse public comments were received on the NPR.

EPA is taking final actions on the redesignation request and SIP revisions submitted on April 30, 2014 by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the Lancaster Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. First, EPA finds that the monitoring data demonstrates that the Area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and continues to attain both NAAQS. Second, EPA is approving Pennsylvania's redesignation request for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, because EPA has determined that the request meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for both NAAQS. Approval of this redesignation request will change the official designation of the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Third, EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because it meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Lancaster Area for transportation conformity purposes. In addition, EPA is approving the 2007 emissions inventory for the Lancaster Area as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for both NAAQS.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for this rulemaking action to become effective immediately upon publication. A delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which eliminates CAA obligations that would otherwise apply. The immediate effective date for this rulemaking action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rulemaking action, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rulemaking action relieves the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of the obligation to comply with nonattainment-related planning requirements for the Lancaster Area pursuant to part D of the CAA and approves certain emissions inventories and MVEBs for the Lancaster Area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this rulemaking action to become effective on the date of publication.

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action, approving the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the comprehensive emissions inventory for the Lancaster Area for both NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

This action presents EPA's most recent decision to list as acceptable several substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; aerosols; and adhesives, coatings, and inks sectors. New substitutes are:

• R-450A in new vending machines;

• R-448A in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses;

• R-513A in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses;

• R-449A in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses;

• Hydrofluoroolefin 1 (HFO)-1336mzz(Z) in rigid polyurethane spray foam (high-pressure, two-part uses only); and

• Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) in non-mechanical heat transfer, three solvent cleaning end-uses, aerosol solvents, and adhesives and coatings.

For copies of the full list of acceptable substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODS) in all industrial sectors, visit EPA's Ozone Layer Protection Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists/index.html. Substitutes listed as unacceptable; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; or acceptable, subject to use conditions are also listed in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.

The sections below discuss each substitute listing in detail. Appendix A contains tables summarizing today's listing decisions for these new substitutes. The statements in the “Further Information” column in the tables provide additional information, but are not legally binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the “Further Information” column may not include a comprehensive list of other legal obligations you may need to meet when using the substitute. Although you are not required to follow recommendations in the “Further Information” column of the table to use a substitute consistent with section 612 of the CAA, some of these statements may refer to obligations that are enforceable or binding under federal or state programs other than the SNAP program. In many instances, the information simply refers to standard operating practices in existing industry standards and/or building codes. When using these substitutes, EPA strongly encourages you to apply the information in this column. Many of these recommendations, if adopted, would not require significant changes to existing operating practices.

You can find submissions to EPA for the substitutes listed in this document, as well as other materials supporting the decisions in this action, in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov.

EPA's decision: EPA finds R-450A acceptable as a substitute for use in new equipment in vending machines.

R-450A, marketed under the trade name Solstice® N-13, is a weighted blend of 42 percent hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2) and 58 percent HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Solstice® N-13 (R-450A) SNAP Information Notice.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

• “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration, Vending Machines, and Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: R-450A”

EPA previously listed R-450A as acceptable for use as a refrigerant in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62,863).

Environmental information: R-450A has an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of zero. Its components, HFC-134a and HFO-1234ze(E), have global warming potentials (GWPs) of 1,430 2 and one to six,3 respectively. When these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-450A has a 100-year integrated GWP (100-yr GWP) of about 600. The components of R-450A are both excluded from the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC) under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).4

Flammability information: R-450A as formulated and in the worst-case fractionation formulation is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has established Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs) of 1,000 ppm and 800 ppm as 8-hour time-weighted averages (TWAs) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234ze(E), the components of R-450A, respectively. The manufacturer of R-450A recommends an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) for the workplace of 880 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL, and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's safety data sheet (SDS), in the American Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-450A has an ODP of zero, comparable 5 to or lower than other listed substitutes. R-450A's GWP of about 600 is higher than that of some acceptable substitutes in this end-use, such as CO2 with a GWP of one and propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A with GWPs ranging from three to eight; is comparable to IKON-B's GWP of approximately 550; and is lower than FRIGC FR-12's GWP of approximately 1,080.6 Flammability risks are low, as discussed above, and are comparable to flammability risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. The toxicity risks are similar to those for many other refrigerants and, as with those other refrigerants, can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry; moreover, these risks are common to many refrigerants, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP.

EPA finds R-450A acceptable in the end-use listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-450A is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes acceptable in the same end-use.

EPA's decision: EPA finds R-448A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

R-448A, marketed under the trade name Solstice® N-40, is a weighted blend of 26 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 26 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 21 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); 20 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No 754-12-1); and 7 percent HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Solstice® N-40 (R-448A) SNAP Information Notice.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

• “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration and Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: R-448A”

• “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Refrigerated Transport Substitute: R-448A”

Environmental information: R-448A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFO-1234yf, and HFO-1234ze(E) have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; one to four; 7 8 and one to six; 9 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-448A has a GWP of about 1,390. The components of R-448A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

Flammability information: R-448A as formulated and in the worst-case fractionation formulation is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf; and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E), the components of R-448A. The manufacturer of R-448A recommends an AEL of 890 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AIHA WEELs and manufacturer's AEL, and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-448A has an ODP of zero, comparable 10 to or lower than the other substitutes acceptable in these end-uses.

In refrigerated transport, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, and other HFC refrigerant blends, with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to approximately 3,990; other substitutes listed as acceptable substitutes for refrigerated transport have a lower GWP including R-450A, CO2, direct nitrogen expansion, and Stirling cycle, with GWPs ranging from zero to about 600.

For commercial ice machines, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 1,400 to 3,990; other substitutes listed as acceptable substitutes for commercial ice machines have a lower GWP including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression, Stirling cycle, and R-450A with GWPs ranging from zero to about 600.

R-448A's GWP of about 1,390 is comparable to or lower than a number of other substitutes listed as acceptable in retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems and remote condensing units, including three of the more commonly used substitutes at this time: HFC-134a, R-407A, and R-407C, with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to approximately 2,110. R-448A's GWP of about 1,390 is higher than the GWP of some other acceptable substitutes in retail food refrigeration—supermarket refrigeration systems and remote condensing units, including CO2 with a GWP of one and R-450A with a GWP of about 600.

R-448A's GWP of about 1,390 is comparable to the GWP of several refrigerants listed as acceptable for the retail food refrigeration-low-temperature stand-alone equipment end-use: HFC-134a with a GWP of 1430 and a number of HFC blends with GWPs in the range of 1,100 to 1,500.11 The GWP of R-448A is higher than that of some other listed substitutes for the low-temperature stand-alone equipment end-use, including CO2, propane, isobutane, and R-441A (with GWPs ranging from one to eight).

Flammability risks are low, as discussed above, and are comparable to flammability risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15, and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry; moreover, those risks are common to many refrigerants, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for these same end-uses.

EPA finds R-448A acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-448A is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

EPA's decision: EPA finds R-513A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

R-513A, marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP 10, is a weighted blend of 44 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and 56 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Opteon® XP 10 (R-513A) SNAP Information Notice.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

Environmental information: R-513A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, have GWPs of 1,430 and one to four,13 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-513A has a GWP of about 630. The components of R-513A are both excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

Flammability information: R-513A as formulated and in the worst-case fractionation formulation is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm as an 8-hour TWA for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively, the components of R-513A. The manufacturer of R-513A recommends an AEL of 653 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL, and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-513A has an ODP of zero, comparable 14 to or lower than other listed substitutes in these end-uses.

R-513A's GWP of about 630 is comparable to or lower than a number of other substitutes in retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems and remote condensing units, including R-450A, HFC-134a, R-407A, R-407C, and a number of HFC blends, with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 2,110. R-513's GWP of about 630 is higher than those of some other acceptable substitutes in new retail food refrigeration—supermarket refrigeration systems and remote condensing units, including CO2 with a GWP of one.

In retail food refrigeration—low-temperature stand-alone equipment, R-513A's GWP of about 630 is comparable to or lower than a number of other substitutes, including IKON B, R-450A, FRIGC FR-12, HFC-134a, and R-426Awith GWPs ranging from approximately 550 to approximately 1,500. In retail food-refrigeration—medium temperature stand-alone equipment and vending machines, R-513A's GWP of about 630 is higher than that of some acceptable substitutes in this end-use, such as CO2 with a GWP of one and propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A with GWPs ranging from three to eight; is comparable to the GWPs of IKON-B and R-450A, which are approximately 550 to 600; and is lower than FRIGC FR-12's GWP of approximately 1,080.15

In refrigerated transport, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as R-450A, HFC-134a, R-404A, and other HFC refrigerant blends, with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to approximately 3,990; acceptable substitutes for refrigerated transport with a lower GWP include CO2, direct nitrogen expansion, and Stirling cycle, with GWPs in the range of zero to one.

For cold storage warehouses and industrial process refrigeration, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as R-450A, HFC-134a, R-404A, and other HFC refrigerant blends, with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to approximately 3,990; acceptable substitutes for new cold storage warehouses and for industrial process refrigeration with a lower GWP include CO2 and ammonia with GWPs in the range of zero to one.

For commercial ice machines, most other substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as R-450A, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990. Ammonia vapor compression with a GWP of zero is also an acceptable substitute in this end-use.

In household refrigerators and freezers, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs than R-513A, such as R-450A, R-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990. R-513A's GWP of approximately 630 is higher than those of some other acceptable substitutes in this end-use for new equipment, including propane, isobutane, and R-441A 16 (with GWPs ranging from three to eight), and HFC-152a with a GWP of 124.

For centrifugal, reciprocating, screw and scroll chillers, most other substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as R-450A, R-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990. In these end-uses, acceptable substitutes with lower GWPs for new equipment include ammonia absorption and ammonia vapor compression, HFO-1234ze(E), and for centrifugal chillers only, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene, with GWPs in the range of zero to seven.

For industrial process air conditioning and water coolers, all other substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as R-450A, R-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990.

Flammability risks are low, as discussed above, and are comparable to flammability risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry; moreover, those risks are common to many refrigerants, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for these same end-uses.

EPA finds R-513A acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-513A is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

EPA's decision: EPA finds R-449A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

R-449A, marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP 40, is a weighted blend of 24.3 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 24.7 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 25.7 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and 25.3 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Opteon® XP 40 (R-449A) SNAP Information Notice.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

• “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Refrigerated Transport Substitute:

R-449A”

• “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration and

Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: R-449A”

Environmental information: R-449A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFO-1234yf have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; and one to four,17 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-449A has a GWP of about 1,400. The components of R-449A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

Flammability information: R-449A as formulated and in the worst-case fractionation formulation is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf, the components of R-449A. The manufacturer of R-449A recommends an AEL of 830 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-449A has an ODP of zero, comparable 18 to or lower than the other substitutes acceptable in these end-uses.

In refrigerated transport, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs than R-449's GWP of about 1,400, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, and other HFC refrigerant blends, with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to approximately 3,990; other substitutes listed as acceptable substitutes for refrigerated transport have a lower GWP including R-450A, CO2, direct nitrogen expansion, and Stirling cycle, with GWPs ranging from zero to about 600.

For commercial ice machines, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs than R-449's GWP of about 1,400, such as HFC-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 1,400 to 3,990; other substitutes listed as acceptable substitutes for commercial ice machines have a lower GWP including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression, Stirling cycle and R-450A, with GWPs ranging from zero to about 600.

R-449A's GWP of about 1,400 is comparable to or lower than a number of other substitutes listed as acceptable in retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems and remote condensing units, including three of the more commonly used substitutes at this time: HFC-134a, R-407A, and R-407C, with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to approximately 2,110. R-449A's GWP of about 1,400 is higher than the GWP of some other acceptable substitutes in retail food refrigeration—supermarket refrigeration systems and remote condensing units, including CO2 with a GWP of one and R-450A with a GWP of about 600.

R-449A's GWP of about 1,400 is comparable to the GWP of substitutes listed as acceptable for retail food refrigeration—low-temperature stand-alone equipment, including HFC-134a of 1,430 and a number of HFC blends with GWPs in the range of 1,100 to 1,500 and is higher than those of some other listed substitutes in this end-use, including CO2 with a GWP of one and propane, isobutane, and R-441A (with GWPs ranging from three to eight).19

Flammability risks are low, as discussed above, and are comparable to flammability risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry; moreover, those risks are common to many refrigerants, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP in these same end-uses.

EPA finds R-449A acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-449A is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

EPA's decision: EPA finds methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers acceptable as a substitute for use in new and retrofit equipment in non-mechanical heat transfer. 20

MPHE, marketed under the trade name SineraTM, is a HFO. It is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, represented as C7F13(OCH3). Trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene is the most prevalent isomer in the mixture (approximately 50 percent), and eight isomeric structures have been identified, comprising more than 99% of the material.

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) Received July 2, 2012.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name, “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Non-mechanical Heat Transfer Substitute: Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers.”

Environmental information: MPHE has an ODP of zero. The 100-yr GWP of MPHE is 2.5 and it has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately nine days. MPHE is regulated as a VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

Flammability information: MPHE is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include serious eye irritation, skin irritation, and respiratory tract irritation. Ingestion of MPHE may also be harmful. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

EPA anticipates that MPHE will be used in a manner consistent with the recommendations specified in the SDS. The manufacturer recommends an AEL of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and in any other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: MPHE has an ODP of zero, comparable 21 to or lower than other acceptable substitutes in this same end-use. Additionally, MPHE's GWP of 2.5 is lower than or comparable to the GWP of other acceptable substitutes in the same end-use, such as C7 Fluoroketone, HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-245fa, and HFC-125 (with GWPs ranging from about one to 3,500). Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the manufacturer's AEL, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry; moreover, those risks are common to many heat transfer fluids, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP.

EPA finds MPHE acceptable in the end-use listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by MPHE is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-use.

EPA's decision: EPA finds HFO-1336mzz(Z) acceptable as a substitute for use in rigid polyurethane spray foam (high-pressure, two-part uses only). 22

HFO-1336mzz(Z) is also known as (Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene and cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9), and goes by the trade names of FEA-1100 and Formacel® 1100.

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for FEA-1100 as a Foam Blowing Agent Received 8/3/11.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the name, “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Spray Foam Substitute: HFO-1336mzz(Z) (Formacel® 1100).”

We have previously listed HFO-1336mzz(Z) as a foam blowing agent in a number of other foam blowing end-uses (October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62,863).

Environmental information: HFO-1336mzz(Z) has an ODP of zero. It has a 100-yr GWP of about nine.23 HFO-1336mzz(Z) is a VOC. The manufacturer has petitioned EPA to exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)), which addresses the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS, based on its claim that the chemical exhibits low photochemical reactivity.

Flammability information: HFO-1336mzz(Z) is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of this substitute include skin or eye irritation or frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many foam blowing agents. Additionally, as described in the Premanufacture Notice (PMN), exposure to consumers is expected to be minimal since HFO-1336mzz(Z) is not domestically manufactured or used by consumers. EPA issued a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on June 5, 2015, to require persons to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process HFO-1336mzz(Z) for consumer use (80 FR 32,003, 32,005).

EPA anticipates that HFO-1336mzz(Z) will be used consistent with the recommendations specified in the SDS. The WEEL committee of the Occupational Alliance for Risk Science (OARS) recommends a WEEL for the workplace of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA.24 EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the WEEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and other safety precautions common to the foam blowing industry.

Comparison to other foam blowing agents: HFO-1336mzz(Z) has an ODP of zero, comparable 25 to or lower than other acceptable non-ozone-depleting substitutes for the rigid PU high-pressure, two-part spray foam end-use. HFO-1336mzz(Z)'s GWP of about nine is lower than or comparable to other acceptable substitutes in this end-use, such as HFC-245fa with a GWP of 1,070; commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-227ea containing 7% to 13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc, with GWPs ranging from about 900 to 1,100; trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene and water, with GWPs of one to seven 26 27 28 and zero, respectively. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the OARS WEEL, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the foam blowing industry; moreover, those risks are common to many foam blowing agents, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this end-use.

EPA finds HFO-1336mzz(Z) acceptable in the end-use listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by HFO-1336mzz(Z) is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-use.

EPA's decision: EPA finds methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers acceptable as a substitute for use in:

MPHE, marketed under the trade name SionTM, is an HFO. It is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, represented as C7F13(OCH3). Trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene is the most prevalent isomer in the mixture (approximately 50 percent), and eight isomeric structures have been identified, comprising more than 99% of the material.

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) Received July 2, 2012.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the name, “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Metals Cleaning, Electronics Cleaning, and Precision Cleaning Substitute: Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers.”

Environmental information: The environmental information for this substitute is set forth in the “Environmental information” section in listing A.5.

Flammability information: MPHE is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: The toxicity information for this substitute is set forth in the “Toxicity and exposure data” section in listing I.A.5. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the manufacturer's AEL of 500 ppm on an 8-hr TWA and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and in any other safety precautions common to the solvent cleaning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: MPHE has an ODP of zero, comparable 29 to or lower than the ODP of other substitutes in these three end-uses. MPHE's GWP of 2.5 is lower than or comparable to those of other acceptable substitutes in these three end-uses, such as acetone, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, HFE-7100, and HFC-4310meewith GWPs of 0.5, one to seven,30 less than ten, 297, and 1,640, respectively. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the manufacturer's AEL, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the solvent cleaning industry; moreover, those risks are common to many solvents, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for these same end-uses.

EPA finds MPHE acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by MPHE is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

EPA's decision: EPA finds methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers acceptable as a substitute for use as an aerosol solvent.

MPHE is a HFO. It is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, represented as C7F13(OCH3). Trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene is the most prevalent isomer in the mixture (approximately 50 percent), and eight isomeric structures have been identified, comprising more than 99% of the material.

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) Received July 2, 2012.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the name, “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Aerosol Solvents Substitute: Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers.”

Environmental information: The environmental information for this substitute is set forth in the “Environmental information” section in listing I.A.5.

Flammability information: MPHE is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: The toxicity information for this substitute is set forth in the “Toxicity and exposure data” section in listing I.A.5.

EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the manufacturer's AEL of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and in any other safety precautions common to the aerosol solvent industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: MPHE has an ODP of zero, comparable 31 to or lower than other acceptable substitutes in this end-use. MPHE's GWP of 2.5 is lower than or comparable to the GWP of other acceptable substitutes in the same end-use, such as acetone, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, HFE-7100, and HFC-4310mee with GWPs of 0.5, one to seven,32 less than ten, 297, and 1,640, respectively. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the manufacturer's AEL, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the aerosol solvent industry; moreover, those risks are common to many aerosol solvents, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP.

EPA finds MPHE acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by MPHE is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

EPA's decision: EPA finds methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers acceptable as a substitute for use as a carrier solvent in:

MPHE, marketed under the trade name SuprionTM, is an HFO. It is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, represented as C7F13(OCH3). Trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene is the most prevalent isomer in the mixture (approximately 50 percent), and eight isomeric structures have been identified, comprising more than 99% of the material.

You may find the redacted submission in Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) Received July 2, 2012.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the name, “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Adhesives and Coatings Substitute: Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers.”

Environmental information: The environmental information for this substitute is set forth in the “Environmental information” section in listing I.A.5.

Flammability information: MPHE is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: The toxicity information for this substitute is set forth in the “Toxicity and exposure data” section in listing I.A.5. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the manufacturer's AEL of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and in any other safety precautions common to the adhesives and coatings industries.

Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: MPHE has an ODP of zero, comparable 33 to or lower than other acceptable substitutes in these two end-uses. MPHE's GWP of 2.5 is lower than or comparable to those of other acceptable substitutes in the same end-use, such as acetone, trans-1-chloroprop-1-ene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene and HFE-7100 with GWPs of 0.5, one to seven,34 less than ten, and 297, respectively. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the manufacturer's AEL, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the adhesives and coatings industries; moreover, those risks are common to many carrier solvents for adhesives and coatings, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP.

EPA finds MPHE acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by MPHE is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I substance (CFC, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, hydrobromofluorocarbon, and chlorobromomethane) or class II substance (HCFC) with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially available.

Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of “acceptable” substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists and the lists of “unacceptable,” “acceptable subject to use conditions,” and “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits” substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G.

Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.

Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.

Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications.

Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

On March 18, 1994, EPA published the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 13,044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in the major industrial use sectors (subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). These sectors are the following: refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS.

Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as acceptable those substitutes that do not present a significantly greater risk to human health and the environment as compared with other substitutes that are currently or potentially available.

Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who plans to market or produce a substitute to replace a class I substance or class II substance in one of the eight major industrial use sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative (40 CFR 82.176(a)). While this requirement typically applies to chemical manufacturers as the entity likely to be planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,35 it may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, and end-users 36 when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes complete and adequate data (40 CFR 82.180(a)). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after notice has been provided to the agency.

The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable (40 CFR 82.180(b)).37 Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered “use restrictions” and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions may be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses within the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable substitutes.38

After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the substitute is used are met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. EPA describes such substitutes as “acceptable subject to use conditions.” Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions are in violation of EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).

For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrowed range of use within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector. The Agency requires a user of a narrowed use substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are available for their specific application. EPA describes these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” A person using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using the substitute in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).

The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower risk alternative is available or potentially available 39 provides EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed circumstance.

As described in this document and elsewhere, including the initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register at 59 FR 13,044 on March 18, 1994, the SNAP program evaluates substitutes within a comparative risk framework. The SNAP program compares new substitutes both to the ozone-depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the CAA, and to other available or potentially available alternatives for the same end-uses. The environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers include ozone depletion potential, flammability, toxicity, occupational and consumer health and safety, as well as contributions to global warming and other environmental factors. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a substitute—and over time, information applicable to a substitute can change. This approach does not imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk, either to the environment or to human health. Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater risk to human health and the environment than other available substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed by our current overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially available substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes.

In contrast, EPA publishes “notices of acceptability” or “determinations of acceptability,” to notify the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13,044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list alternatives that are acceptable without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a substitute.

Many SNAP listings include “comments” or “further information” to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by OSHA). The “further information” classification does not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “further information” column in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus many of the statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make significant changes in existing operating practices.

For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site at: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. For more information on the agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the SNAP final rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13,044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are found at: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html.

NEH is making technical amendments to its FOIA regulations published at 45 CFR part 1171 to correct its address as a result of an office move. The former street address was: 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20506. The new street address is: 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. The amendments also correct all room numbers affected by the office move. All other contact information remains the same.

Publication of this document constitutes final action of these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). NEH has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary in this case because these amendments are nonsubstantive and editorial in nature.

Therefore, 45 CFR 1171 is amended as follows: